No FUD there. It's exactly what Google does. They have our info, and they sell that to other Ad agencies, and companies that find that data useful. No need to pretend otherwise. It's called data mining. The problem is that unlike most other companies, the data they're mining isn't their own, it's ours. This is one reason why both our government and the EU, along with some others are investigating Google for various privacy offenses. And by that, I don't mean a few Congressmen asking for information, as they've asked Apple. When the German government told them to destroy that data, they protested that they shouldn't have to. This was all in the news, and is one reason why they are being investigated. If this was in error, shouldn't they have volunteered to destroy all of that information instead?...

Conspiracy theory? Sure, but it does explain it better than any other theory does...

I know you'll try to wriggle out of all this, but it's all public knowledge, so you can't realistically deny any of it. I suppose you can try to assign better motives to it, but I can't find any that fit.

There's valid questions in there. Google selling your personal data to 3rd parties isn't one of them and you know that. You can't convince me otherwise. Adding all the other comments still doesn't make what you originally claimed true.

Android is hardly a good example though, given the platforms reputation for heavy piracy and other forms of cheapskatery.

It's a good example because realistically, it's the only other thriving platform out there, and as people there prefer free to paid, and advertising is such a big part of free, particularly there, we can see what happens when a paid app goes free. It happens here as well. We can see app pricing changing all the time, with many apps going from paid to free, and back again, as well as changing prices up and down.

I'm not sure we're looking at this in same way. When Xerox invented this unique identifier it was first for ethernet but then it was quickly adopted by other wired networking technologies. WiFi and bluetooth had if from the start but "back in the Sun OS days" they hadn't been invented yet.

I guess my understanding of working with a MAC address is a little antiquated. From the perspective of using it locally by an app as a device id rather than the traditional remote connection network identifier is a new approach in some respects. The way you are describing it is the app gains access to the MAC address from the OS for any one of the hardwares available then sends that value to a remote server and logs that value as your personal id. This method would allow you to connect to the app's service through any network protocol whether it is wifi, gsm, bt, whatever and the MAC address is always the same.

There's valid questions in there. Google selling your personal data to 3rd parties isn't one of them and you know that. You can't convince me otherwise. Adding all the other comments still doesn't make what you originally claimed true.

Well, they been accused of doing that. It's also part of their business. I really don't understand how you don't know this! Just like the small companies who have been accused of doing this on Apple's platform, because that's how they make their money, though I didn't know that The Weather Channel was one of them, Google does it as well. This is how directed Ads work. They need to know enough about you to think that Ad will be of interest to you. Seems harmless on the surface, and I suppose it is. But a lot of people don't like it. And no one should be doing it without explicit agreement on the part of each individual. And they should not only ask, but they should ask for each bit of separate info they want, not ask for everything in the aggregate the way they usually do now. Because the way it's done, people really don't understand just how much is being gathered.

I don't care if I don't convince you, because it's true no matter what you choose to think.

Now I think you're trying to start an argument, because you're far from obtuse. So I'll probably stop responding to you (in this thread) after this post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by melgross

Well, not all of those are free. In fact well under half are.

You did not say how much. You did say you liked "free with ads" and I said I do not. So I think it's a reasonable assumption that you have proportionally more "free" than I do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by melgross

I don't know how you support the developer community more than I do. That's just a statement from you here. I don't know how you reference "support".

What about the words "proportionally more" and "perhaps" (indeed, strung together) in my post don't you understand? Do I have to spell out for you that I: (i) could be wrong; (ii) am not referring to absolute numbers, but just 'proportions'? (I have about 300 apps, which is lower than your 400.)

By "support" I mean the amount of dollars I pay for them. What do you mean? Also, what did you think I meant?

Quote:

Originally Posted by melgross

But you haven't answered the implied question of how you can say that an Ad supported app would have nothing, or little of value to you, when you say that you don't even look at them to see.

First of all, if you have a question, ask it; don't "imply" it. This medium does not always lend itself well to nuance as a face-to-face conversation with say, voice inflection and gestures might.

I did not say ad-supported apps have little value to me. What I said was, I do not like the intrusiveness of many ad-supported apps -- the trade-off between what they offer and having to put up with silly pop-ups and notifications is just not worth it, for me (and I am not you). There is almost nothing out there that's free that I like that I couldn't get a paid analog for (either from the same developer or someone else). I am quite happy to pay, given the very nominal sums involved.

Also, where did I say I "...don't look at them to see"? I often download free, but tend to delete them if they have ads and pop-ups (latest example: Calculator Pro for iPad Free -- great product, but totally intrusive so I deleted it; you can download it yourself to see what I mean). Also, I have downloaded hundreds of free apps as of this point, so I think I have a reasonably good empirical sense of what's out there and what the trade-offs are.

Tim Cook is gay, believes in climate change, and cares deeply about racial equality. Deal with it (and please spare us if you can't).

Well, they been accused of doing that. It's also part of their business. I really don't understand how you don't know this! Just like the small companies who have been accused of doing this on Apple's platform, because that's how they make their money, though I didn't know that The Weather Channel was one of them, Google does it as well. This is how directed Ads work. They need to know enough about you to think that Ad will be of interest to you. Seems harmless on the surface, and I suppose it is. But a lot of people don't like it. And no one should be doing it without explicit agreement on the part of each individual. And they should not only ask, but they should ask for each bit of separate info they want, not ask for everything in the aggregate the way they usually do now. Because the way it's done, people really don't understand just how much is being gathered.

I don't care if I don't convince you, because it's true no matter what you choose to think.

Who accused them of selling personally identifiable information? A poster in a forum or some legitimate and reliable source? Of course they're an ad-delivery company. That doesn't mean they sell your privacy details to others. Why would you even continue to argue that point? Wouldn't that be working against themselves to give what they've managed to put together to other companies so that Google wouldn't even be needed for ad placements? That doesn't even make sense from a business standpoint.

Some of your other points could have questions. Google selling your data to others? Nope.

No FUD there. It's exactly what Google does. They have our info, and they sell that to other Ad agencies, and companies that find that data useful.

That is completely untrue. I've used Google ads and all they offer is the ability to have my ad placed in front of a particular type of user. I get to say I want my ad placed in front of people interested in X and accessing the internet in region Y and I'm willing to pay Z per click on my ad. I never find out who clicked on my ad. I never see any personal details about them.

Google clearly has this data so they can show the right ads to the right people, but this data is never sold to ad agencies nor to other companies.

No, but I would expect a NY Times reporter to be savvier than to basically say "research" is the reason. The reporter does allude to customer surveys and such. Target might well have to have more than mere (anonymous) credit card transactions.

Store loyalty cards are probably the main way big retailers get names and addresses. Online shopping is another source. Customer surveys are yet another. Once they connect your name and address to a credit card number, every purchase you have previously made with that card as well as every future purchases are all linked to that address.

Even if they just have a credit card with no address, that can still be used to link every single purchase you have made in any of their stores with that credit card and then print vouchers along with the receipt next time you go shopping.

Now I think you're trying to start an argument, because you're far from obtuse. So I'll probably stop responding to you (in this thread) after this post.

No, I wasn't trying to start an argument. You seem to have thought I said that all, or most of my apps were free. I was just correcting that impression. That's not argumentative.

Quote:

You did not say how much. You did say you liked "free with ads" and I said I do not. So I think it's a reasonable assumption that you have proportionally more "free" than I do.

I don't know how you get from my liking some apps that have Ads, to the assumption that I would have a greater proportion of them.

Quote:

What about the words "proportionally more" and "perhaps" (indeed, strung together) in my post don't you understand? Do I have to spell out for you that I: (i) could be wrong; (ii) am not referring to absolute numbers, but just 'proportions'? (I have about 300 apps, which is lower than your 400.)

By "support" I mean the amount of dollars I pay for them. What do you mean? Also, what did you think I meant?

I really didn't know what you meant. You might have thought it was clear, but it wasn't. Supporting developers could mean almost anything. Since it appears I have more apps in total, then I suppose that would mean that I support them more, if I understand your point there. Perhaps I support them more as I have a lot of paid apps, perhaps more than you do. Perhaps I support them more if I have more unpaid apps. What do you think?

Quote:

First of all, if you have a question, ask it; don't "imply" it. This medium does not always lend itself well to nuance as a face-to-face conversation with say, voice inflection and gestures might.

Now you're being unnecessarily rude. If someone gives an argument, they can reasonably expect a detailed reply. Not everything must be asked as a question.

I did not say ad-supported apps have little value to me. What I said was, I do not like the intrusiveness of many ad-supported apps -- the trade-off between what they offer and having to put up with silly pop-ups and notifications is just not worth it, for me (and I am not you). There is almost nothing out there that's free that I like that I couldn't get a paid analog for (either from the same developer or someone else). I am quite happy to pay, given the very nominal sums involved.

Also, where did I say I "...don't look at them to see"? I often download free, but tend to delete them if they have ads and pop-ups (latest example: Calculator Pro for iPad Free -- great product, but totally intrusive so I deleted it; you can download it yourself to see what I mean). Also, I have downloaded hundreds of free apps as of this point, so I think I have a reasonably good empirical sense of what's out there and what the trade-offs are.[/QUOTE]

Sorry. When I read this, I assumed it to mean that you were so against them that you never looked at them to see if they contained anything useful to you

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
90% of devs can piss off? Excluding Apple which obviously has access to the UDID?
I do not use a single app that has ads. It's intrusive and irritating on a mobile phone, and when on wireless, the user pays to see them. A lot of them are crap anyway.

If someone can't give us an honest-to-goodness free app, yes, they can piss off.

Who accused them of selling personally identifiable information? A poster in a forum or some legitimate and reliable source? Of course they're an ad-delivery company. That doesn't mean they sell your privacy details to others. Why would you even continue to argue that point? Wouldn't that be working against themselves to give what they've managed to put together to other companies so that Google wouldn't even be needed for ad placements? That doesn't even make sense from a business standpoint.

Some of your other points could have questions. Google selling your data to others? Nope.

This is just one article about it. As I say, it's part of their business. They admit it, why shouldn't you? And yes, Google is one of those advertising agencies selling data there.

That is completely untrue. I've used Google ads and all they offer is the ability to have my ad placed in front of a particular type of user. I get to say I want my ad placed in front of people interested in X and accessing the internet in region Y and I'm willing to pay Z per click on my ad. I never find out who clicked on my ad. I never see any personal details about them.

Google clearly has this data so they can show the right ads to the right people, but this data is never sold to ad agencies nor to other companies.

Nope! See my reply to Gatorguy.

By the way, this is something that's been tp reported on many times. Not this one initiative, but the fact that Google has been doing this for years. What in the article is just a way for them to formalize it, and to make some money from others sales and purchases in addition to their own.

What did they admit to Mel? Not selling your data to any third party. The article concerns the possibility of 3rd party advertisers joining an exchange organized by Google where they buy and/or sell data between them, not Google selling yours. Google's privacy policy strictly prohibits the sharing of your personal data without express permission just as Apple's does. Some of those advertisers (just like some iOS and or/Android developers) may have no privacy policies that prohibit sharing of data.

No place is the claim made that Google is selling any data on you to any outside parties, or that it's even a consideration.

90% Really? Where are you getting these numbers? Also Apple mentioned this months before August 2011 (around WWDC). Any and all developers have had more than enough time to transition. Replacing the UDID with a server-generated UUID which gets backed up on sync works just as well and requires little development on the server side.

No I don"t think that is correct. A website cannot see your MAC address.

The server can't see your website as the only MAC address being retained in the HTTP headers are from the last node along the route. However, client-side JS used to be able to retrieve the MAC address from the machine and then pass it back to the web server. I'm not sure if this is still possible in any web browser.

edit: Looks like this was only possible in ActiveX and never possible in JS.... which i'm very glad to read.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

The server can't see your website as the only MAC address being retained in the HTTP headers are from the last node along the route. However, client-side JS used to be able to retrieve the MAC address from the machine and then pass it back to the web server. I'm not sure if this is still possible in any web browser.

edit: Looks like this was only possible in ActiveX and never possible in JS.... which i'm very glad to read.

If it were possible then php would have a function for it which it does not

What did they admit to Mel? Not selling your data to any third party. The article concerns the possibility of 3rd party advertisers joining an exchange organized by Google where they buy and/or sell data between them, not Google selling yours. Google's privacy policy strictly prohibits the sharing of your personal data without express permission just as Apple's does. Some of those advertisers (just like some iOS and or/Android developers) may have no privacy policies that prohibit sharing of data.

No place is the claim made that Google is selling any data on you to any outside parties, or that it's even a consideration.

To be honest, I don't see the difference between devs using UDID or their own system. The end result is still them being able to track users. Unless Apple is forbidding tracking in general, I don't really see the point in this.

Also, does it say anywhere whether Apple or iAds is also not allowed to track using UDID?

It stops third party advertisers/developers offering prizes like free in-game currency to users who download all the other specified apps in a group. It is currently possible because the advertiser can check if both apps have been accessed by the same iOS device.

It also allows in-app advertisers to know which apps you own and how much time you spend on each etc.

An ad-hoc system will be different because there is no way to link both apps to the same user without having them provide identifying data (like an email address).

No I don"t think that is correct. A website cannot see your MAC address.

Sorry, I should have clarified. They may be able to see the MAC address of your router. If its your private router, at home, say, then effectively, they can see your MAC address.

It's complex, because as others have brought up, ARP should prevent that, and it does, most of the time. But if you're with an iSP, and you don't use a router, your ISP could have your MAC address, on theirs, which could be subject to interception. This also has something to do with Java and Java scripts, but I don't remember all of that as I haven't worked with it for some time.

I remember reading that article when it came out. It was actually quite interesting. Basically the three heads of Google (Larry, Eric and Sergey) were split on tracking cookies. Google previously didn't use cookies to track users. The ads show were simply based on what you typed into the search box.

There was nothing in the article about Google selling personal data to 3rd parties.

Developers will do anything, legal or not, to get at your information. They can't make a living without selling ads. Unless developers are actively shut out from accessing your private data (like Apple is doing) they will continue to sell your data to the highest bidder.

And the cell phone owner of the data doesn't even get a cut of ad sale money!

Yes, MAC addresses are used to request an IP address for a network but do cellular connections use a MAC address or some other logical address pulled from the HW? It's my understanding that is what the IMEI is for.

Also, GPRS is the packet service atop GSM which would have already completed the handshake and authenticated you on the network.

Actually,the SIM card authenticates the device(tablet,phone) to the cellular network .
Yes you are absolutely right in stating that GPRS sits on top of the GSM network.
But consider this,without an IP address how will Towe handover take place when you are moving within different coverage zone.
The MAC address is etched on the NIC card of the device and this in conjunction with the SIM authenticates the device into a cellular network.

Also,IMEI number is suppossed to be unique.However,you have many counterfeit phones in the market(think low cost touchscreen phones by fly-by-night-operators) which actually copies the same IMEI into their phones.There has been a talk among handset makers to standardise IMEI and maintain all the IMEI ina database by a regulatory body.However,I am not sure how far it is gone.So till then I guess we'll be seing Chinese counterfeit phones on the market

Interesting article from back in 2010. They were already considering the sale of people's info sometime earlier than this article was published.

Now, to clarify. Google states that they are not selling "personally identifiable information". They use that phrase, or one very similar. It doesn't mean that they aren't selling your data.

That WSJ article should actually be a comfort to you, clarifying that Google takes privacy much more seriously than some of it's peers.

And you're absolutely correct that none of those articles even hint that Google sells your personal information. I'm surprised you didn't already know that. Better to just admit you might have a "misstatement" in your original post. There isn't any reliable source claiming Google sells your personal data. Saying they do is FUD, simple as that.

Developers will do anything, legal or not, to get at your information. They can't make a living without selling ads. Unless developers are actively shut out from accessing your private data (like Apple is doing) they will continue to sell your data to the highest bidder.

And the cell phone owner of the data doesn't even get a cut of ad sale money!

What developers do is use any of the different ad networks out there, I am just about to do that today myself as asked by a client. Or use an analytics package. The number of free apps with out some analytic, or ads, attached is small. It is within these SDKs that the UDID is retrieved. individual devs may not care.

( although Flurry had a patch recently).

The other reason is as I said, to get some of your own analysis in your own web service. To tell the number of devices, as a proxy of users, from web services.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

Speak for yourself. Let the rest of the developer community do the same.

Well anybody who uses ads uses this, as of now. .

Its time to move on from the idea of a developer in a bedroom. This is a multi-billion pound industry, and marketing apps are all the rage. Knowing a random device is useful to individual devs and individual app analytics, but tells us nothing else about the user on its own ( if the user has agreed to add some information, then he has signed up as data). on the other hand if the analytic houses, or ad providers, are correlating data from UDIDs then ban that.

I think all that is happening here is a largely cosmetic "fix" to a non-problem. I could post my UDID here, what violation of privacy would that entail? Given that the same OS allowed until recently the full access to contacts without a request, and still allows access to all your photos without a request, this is sheer silliness. I think Apple is acting un-competively, and I bet it gets device information in iAds - where is it not restricted to the ( once legal) UDID, but can access the ( always illegal for non-Apple developers) serial number etc.

There goes the great site called testflight (testflightapp.com). That site made it very easy for developers to deploy beta builds of apps to beta testers. The app/browser should just ask if you want to allow access. Why deny it completely when there are good uses for it?

I remember reading that article when it came out. It was actually quite interesting. Basically the three heads of Google (Larry, Eric and Sergey) were split on tracking cookies. Google previously didn't use cookies to track users. The ads show were simply based on what you typed into the search box.

There was nothing in the article about Google selling personal data to 3rd parties.

Again there is nothing here about selling personal data to 3rd parties.

Not everything is an evil plot.

Actually, it was mentioned in the first article, and hinted at in the second, as per the part I quoted.

That WSJ article should actually be a comfort to you, clarifying that Google takes privacy much more seriously than some of it's peers.

And you're absolutely correct that none of those articles even hint that Google sells your personal information. I'm surprised you didn't already know that. Better to just admit you might have a "misstatement" in your original post. There isn't any reliable source claiming Google sells your personal data. Saying they do is FUD, simple as that.

What the articles show, as far back as mid 2010, is that the company was already compromising their original ideas as their growth began to slow down, and competitors began selling user info. They had talks about doing that in 2010, but it wasn't decided yet.

All they say now, is that they don't sell user info with personally identifiable labels. It's been moving in that direction for some time. You can deny it if you like.

What the articles show, as far back as mid 2010, is that the company was already compromising their original ideas as their growth began to slow down, and competitors began selling user info. They had talks about doing that in 2010, but it wasn't decided yet.

All they say now, is that they don't sell user info with personally identifiable labels. It's been moving in that direction for some time. You can deny it if you like.

I'm not denying that Google has had internal discussions about how to expand their advertising initiatives. I don't ahve knowledge that they have, nor do you, but it would certainly be a reasonable assumption. Nice try at deflection tho. It's you who's apparently denying misstating facts when you said Google sells your information, with no citation that they've done so.

It takes much less effort simply to say you might have misspoken Mel. What you'd like readers to believe has no basis in fact. That makes it FUD.